text:
Help identify this old American jet flying formation with a Vought Pirate
Watching the video "America's Top 10 Ugliest Aircraft" from Youtube:

At around 7:40 into the video when discussing the Vought Pirate, there are a few seconds of a picture where the Pirate was flying in formation with another aircraft that I personally find gorgeous.
What is the aircraft in this picture?

I'd say it's a Vought F7U Cutlass.

It's a Vought F7U Cutlass, "a United States Navy carrier-based jet fighter and fighter-bomber designed and produced by the aircraft manufacturer Chance Vought. It was the first tailless production fighter in the United States as well as United States Navy's first jet equipped with swept wings and the first to be designed with afterburners."
Here a picture of the tail number 415:

Apparently the unique design wasn't that good since "Over one quarter of all Cutlasses built were destroyed in accidents; this high rate of accidents led to the type being withdrawn during the late 1950s despite having been in service for less than ten years."
Wikipedia has plenty of information about it.

P.s.: even if I'd have also chosen the F-35 at the end, anyway the X-32 on the opening picture of the video is in my opinion not that ugly

  (source)
The "ugly aircraft" from your video is a Vought F6U Pirate, the aircraft furthest from the camera: you saw it flying in formation with Chance Vought Cutlass F7U-1, no. 124419, the fifth production aircraft. Note the deep fin extensions on the underside and the long nose instrumentation boom.
The picture below was taken by aviation photographer William J Balogh, with the nose painted white with a red arrow, possibly at the Detroit National Air Races in 1951.

(source)
 During a test flight in February 21 1951 (source incorrectly says it's a F7U-3)
The white nose design seems to have been removed at some point when the aircraft was assigned to the Flight Test Division at NAS Patuxent River (below)

This plane, piloted by John Starr Hill, crashed on landing on 23 October 1953 at Patuxent River and was written off. (note - the record says 1 fatality, but the pilot was not killed.)
(Despite the same Modex number (and what the caption says) this is not the same aircraft depicted here at Ft Lauderdale in a rather sorry state in 1978, which is a F7U-3 / 129582.)

The more I look at this plane, the more it looks taken from an 80s cartoon like G-Force.

At least one of the photos was taken by my father, William J. Balogh, Sr.  I believe I have the original photo with his stamp on the back.  He was a journalist, photographer and wrote a newspaper column, "This Flying World".  He loved flying and he absolutely loved the aircraft.  The photo was definitely taken at the Detroit airshow; we lived in the area and I spent most of my childhood at Detroit Metro and regional airport Willow Run.


text:
Can I fly to a class D airport with an NPPL?
I wish to fly into Bristol (EGGD) in a Microlight.
I can see they have a VFR approach procedure here. Can I do this? If so, what are the prerequisites? Assuming filing a flight plan is one of them.

Have you checked the landing/handling fee at Bristol? I suspect it will put you off!

@Jamiec what is it?

3rd May 2023 comment on sky demon.  Someone quoted £299 for landing and 30 mins parking.  That's excluding handling. No idea if it's genuine,  but it wouldn't surprise me.

@Jamiec here are the fees... it's a minefield, no idea how to calculate the total haha https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/media/4jsdumh1/fees-and-charges-1-april-2022.pdf

Maybe there is a cheaper airport I can go to? I just want to practice landing somewhere large and talking on the real radio :)

I also found that,  I also can't make head nor tails. Phone atc if you want the answer.  In answer to your other comment - Southend.  Much more ga friendly.  Great large airport. Expensive,  but nothing like Bristol. In the region of £30-50

VATSIM is not a good place to look for information on real-world flying. The authoritative source for what you're looking at is the UK AIP. Here's the Control area chart for Bristol. The textual information states

VFR and Special VFR aircraft will usually be instructed to route via one of the Visual Reference Points (paragraph 5 refers), not above altitude 2000 FT (aerodrome QNH).

Further info also states

Due to restricted GA parking, operators of inbound GA flights must notify handling agents with expected ETA and duration of stay. Handling mandatory

That should give you a pretty strong indication that

GA is not particularly welcome
It's going to cost you!

There is nothing (except ATC clearance obviously) stopping you from flying into controlled airspace in a microlight with an NPPL. There is no pre-requisite to file a flight plan, as far as I'm aware.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What's the best way to get through clouds when not instrument rated?
The obvious answer to this is... don't go into clouds.
But if you are flying among scattered or broken clouds and you go up above them, then when you reach your destination it's overcast and there is no way down - what is the safest way to descend through them?
I asked this at my club and someone suggested side slipping would be the best approach as you get through quickly and are less likely to experience unusual attitudes due to not pitching as much.
Please also assume there are no IMC instruments on board, i.e. no artificial horizon etc.
For reference, this happens a lot, like here.

If you are flying towards your destination and can see the ground below and out in the distance you can see an overcast layer below you, why would you ever continue the flight?  Proper ADM is to land short of the destination where you can descend in VMC conditions.  If you don't have proper instruments or training to fly in IMC you will kill yourself.

Please don't ever do this dude!

@Jamiec Not intentionally :) I was asking in-case I made a mistake and ended up in that situation sometime. I will of course try to avoid this at all costs!

@wbeard52 Yep, can still happen, i.e. https://youtu.be/bLmzy8ZPgtc

@Cloud That's not actually an example of this, since N1254Z was scud running, not flying over an overcast. But anyway the take-away should not be "this happens" but to recognize the kind of hazardous attitudes that lead the pilot of N1254Z to put himself in that position. There's no way you end up in this situation without making a lot of mistakes. That said, what to do in this situation is a perfectly reasonable situation, as long as you realize this is an absolute last resort for dire emergencies, and not to be considered as a way to complete a flight when there are any alternatives.

A closer example is this one, where an IFR-rated pilot flying IFR over the top found themselves stuck above an overcast but with a vacuum failure that knocked out some of their IMC instruments. This illustrates well exactly how dangerous this situation is- even an IFR-qualified pilot who is current and proficient can fail to control a plane in IMC even with some IMC instruments. Trying to do the same with no training and even fewer instruments is foolhardy if there is any alternative. If he had declared an emergency and flown straight for the closest

weather that would permit a VFR descent, he'd probably still be alive today.

But seriously, flying over a broken cloud layer with no IR and no IMC instruments is asking for trouble. If you divert as soon as scattered becomes broken, you'll never need to worry about broken becoming overcast.

@Chris -- re "But seriously, flying over a broken cloud layer with no IR and no IMC instruments is asking for trouble." -- if VFR pilots never flew over broken or undercast cloud later, that would be very limiting in some areas (not to mention boring).  I don't see any problem with flying VFR over a complete overcast occasionally as long you have very good reason to believe that either a) it will end well before you reach your destination or b) you have enough fuel to go somewhere else, such as back where you started.

Sure you are accepting some risk (namely that of engine failure) but let's be realistic, we often accept some risk --e.g. single-engine ops at night over rough terrain.

@Cloud -- re "I asked this at my club and someone suggested side slipping" -- your question pertains to getting down through a complete 100% overcast, not squeezing in through a small hole in a broken layer, right?  I think at least one answer missed this point.

@quietflyer I'm not saying not to fly over an overcast VFR. But if you're going to do so having some IMC instruments and staying proficient in basic instrument procedures using them makes a big difference in how safe it is.

@Chris -- agreed

I'm depressed by the number of very bad answers. No one is actually answering the question, everyone repeats something along the line of "don't be an idiot!" Which, yes, don't be. But if you have been, what aerodynamically is the thing to do? We teach accidental spin and stall recovery, which (generally) only happens to people being idiots, so there's value to understanding what to do if ever caught in this circumstance. IMC can arrive for a number of reasons, and they're not always clearcut flying into an overcast layer. I had near-IMC happen when I got sudden clear-air icing in a 7ECA.

@KennSebesta unfortunately that's often the story on this site. Feel free to provide an answer though!

@Cloud I asked a slightly different question, in hopes that it could focus just on the aerodynamics: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/100649/what-airplane-control-configurations-can-passively-guarantee-stable-descents. Unfortunately, that seems to have fallen immediate victim to the same vibe as yours. I've edited my question to make it very clear that I'm really just interested in the aerodynamics, not the regulations. Let's see if it works?

It depends a lot on the type of cloud. And the airplane.
Stratus clouds occur in calm air whereas cumulus clouds are caused by convection. In the calm air of stratus clouds it is rather unlikely that a well-trimmed airplane will go into a spiral dive all by its own. Exceptions will apply: I have flown gliders which not only will start a phygoid motion right after letting go of the stick, but also will invariably slowly but surely enter into a spiral dive.
Therefore: Know your airplane AND the type of cloud you encounter. Try descending in calm, cloudless air to learn how your airplane will react. If you still fly straight with a constant rate of descent after a minute, you can risk repeating that in clouds that lack any convection. Trim the airplane at a moderate speed and let go of the controls until you see the ground again.
However, if you have reason to suspect that the cloud contains turbulence, turn around and avoid entering the cloud. Gusts will upset even the most stable airplane and a spiral dive will become very likely. Humans have a tendency to continue on the same path when under stress. Discipline yourself and recognize when you are under stress and widen your options. Turning around is the much better choice over continuing into the clouds. And always turn around, irrespective of the type of cloud, when you know that your airplane will not fly straight for an extended time when left to itself.

How come does turbulence push an a/c into a spiral dive? Is it because every airplane has a tipping point for bank where a spiral dive is inevitable, and the turbulence gives the energy needed to go past that point?

@KennSebesta Yes, while small pertubations can be tolerated, violent gusts cannot. I have heard enough stories of glider pilots who left a cloud inverted or in a spiral dive, being completely disoriented. My cloud flying experience is outlined above - I never flew through cumulus clouds, only through the haze at the fringe when climbing too high under the center of the cloud.

@PeterKämpf  There are situations where there are no other options.  Intended destination, 145 mi; fuel avail. ~120 mi; nearby airport w/fuel, 85 mi.  Conditions, stratus 3000 ovrcast, stratocum, 5000 broken, stratocum 8000 broken, cumulus at 12000. Banking thru potential turbulence not readily an option, n factor concern, light aircrft. Just saying...

@ThomasPerry If you find yourself in that situation you have already made a series of mistakes. The consequences might not be felt immediately, but will come due eventually. Sometimes it will be better to land in a field than to try to penetrate clouds. Widen your opportunities and don't think it is only on airports where airplanes can be landed. Better to be able to walk away from the plane than arriving at the ground with assorted plane parts in free fall.

@PeterKämpf  No argument there! Generally speaking, pilots make choices (not necessarily mine).  In the United States, one of the leading causes of fatalities is fuel exhaustion.  Pilots are sometimes at the will of unintended consequences & forced to make difficult risk-averse choices.  My comment regarded your previous text; was purely intended in the third person & choices one makes given situational risks.  Perhaps there isn't a field nearby & given weather conditions, no clear path to return.  The pilot is left with these concerns; now what? I think you've addressed all that very well.

Step -2: There is nowhere in the world you need to be badly enough to go VFR into IMC. If you're under enough pressure to get somewhere on time that you'd even consider going VFR into IMC, don't fly GA to get there!
Step -1: Exercise good Aeronautical Decision-Making (ADM) and do thorough preflight planning. Short of an unforecast overcast cloud deck appearing out of nowhere beneath you,  you shouldn't ever find yourself in this position.
Step 0: The moment you think you might be forced to go VFR into IMC, you are in an emergency situation. Don't delay- declare an emergency to ATC and ask for help finding your way to a break in the clouds.
But suppose you are out of options and you need to descend through clouds. There are some major risks here:

Mid-air collision
Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT)
Stall/spin
Spiral
Other Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I)

Note: the next few steps are general advice. As usual, this may differ based on type, and you should follow your POH's instructions for an emergency descent through clouds if they differ.
Step 1: Plan your descent.
There's not much you can do about a midair collision. Declare an emergency to ATC (if you ignored the previous step and you haven't declared already) and have them clear the space for you. If you can't get a hold of ATC, do your best to avoid areas with heavy IFR traffic.
Avoiding CFIT mainly means picking a course through the clouds that has the most space between the cloud ceilings and the ground. ATC can help with this, and you may have some cockpit technology to help as well. If at all possible, you don't want to turn at all in the clouds, so try to find a straight course that will let you descend all the way through the cloud deck without turning.
If you will be relying on a compass to keep on course, an easterly or westerly heading is better to reduce compass errors. Of course, terrain considerations take precedence.
Step 2: set up the plane to fly itself as much as possible.
Point the plane on the course you want to descend through the clouds. Turn on full carb heat, if applicable. Set trim and power so the plane will fly at a moderate airspeed and descent rate with hands off the controls. Lock the throttle in place. The Cessna 152 POH recommends 70 knots and 500 to 800 fpm, but this will depend on the type. You don't want to be in slow flight, but any excess airspeed over that isn't doing you any good.
Once you have set up for this hands-off descent, put the ailerons in a neutral position and don't touch the stick again! If you don't touch the elevator, you can't stall or spin. It is much easier to avoid overcontrolling the plane if you avoid touching the ailerons. If you have an autopilot or wing leveler, use it!
In an ideal world, you would completely stop manipulating the controls entirely. Most planes will continue to fly themselves with no pilot input, and it is common for a disoriented pilot to fly themselves into a spiral dive. Unfortunately, most planes will eventually fly themselves into a spiral dive even with hands off. Which leads us to Step 3.
Step 3: Don't turn!
If you're not turning, you're not in a spiral dive. Watch the turn coordinator (if equipped) and the HI/HSI/compass. The most important thing in the world for you right now is that you are not turning. Make small, cautious adjustments to the rudder pedals as necessary to show wings level on the turn coordinator. Stop any trends that you see on the HI/HSI/compass. If you are using the compass, remember that there may be significant errors, especially on a northerly or southerly heading.
As long as you are not turning, you are not spiraling. As long as you don't touch the stick, you won't stall or spin. As long as you don't make abrupt or large inputs to the rudder, you hopefully should maintain control.
Coordination is not a concern. It's much better to be in a slight sideslip and not turning than it is to be perfectly coordinated and turning.
It's very important not to overcorrect. With incorrect or too aggressive inputs, you can induce a spiral dive within seconds. Most airplanes will take much longer to enter a spiral on their own accord.
You may enter a spiral dive despite your best efforts. Be ready to recover when you break out. Remember that pulling back is the one sure-fire way to die.
Step 4: When you break out, recover from the spiral dive if necessary. Don't pull the stick. Cut the throttle and level the wings. The nose will come up of its own accord as it seeks the trimmed airspeed. Don't pull. If the dive has developed and you are at high airspeeds, you may need to push to unload the wings.
Once you are in a usual attitude, resume normal VFR flight. Land as soon as possible. If the ceilings are low, you should seriously consider an off-airport landing rather than scud running in search of an airport.
Step 5: Learn from the experience.
If you've made it this far, congratulations! You've survived a VFR into IMC event and avoided becoming a statistic. Debrief. Figure out what went wrong and how to keep it from happening again. Fill out a NASA ASRS report, which will hopefully help other pilots from being in a similar situation and can protect you from certificate action if the FAA decides to go after you.

He said "no IMC instruments on board", which would mean no turn coordinator.

@quietflyer Just noticed that and made the edit. Anyway the TC isn't absolutely essential. It's just another tool to determine if you're turning. The lack of IMC instruments makes it even more essential that they not touch the ailerons.

I would say the TC is absolutely essential unless certain very specific techniques are used to maximize the usefulness of the wet compass.  See my answer for more...

I generally agree, but would strongly disagree that a mid-air collision is a major risk. It is a risk with severe consequences, but the odds of it happening at random in IMC are the least of any concerns with a flight.

Although I would disagree that planes are naturally stable without touching the ailerons. Certain planes are, and certain planes aren't. This conversation has come up about gliders, which can get more easily into this kind of IMC situation than many realize, and it's important to know if your glider is the kind where it will gently descend in a bank, or will increasingly fall over into a spiral. From my tests, the AC-5M will spiral down, so it's really important I never get caught above a cloud layer!

@KennSebesta It's all situational. If you're descending near a busy airport that has instrument approaches, the risk is by no means negligible. In any case, it's also by far the easiest to deal with- just tell ATC and they will handle it.

@KennSebesta Few, if any, airplanes or gliders are spirally stable in the sense that they will stay out of a spiral forever. The point of not using the ailerons is not that the aircraft will do the right thing forever. It's that you are likely to make things worse rather than better if you are a non-IR rated pilot with no IMC instruments. However quickly an aircraft will enter a spiral hands off, it can enter it a lot quicker if the pilot actively encourages it!

@Chris, let's look at the numbers. Busy airports in IMC have, lets say, one plane per minute moving through an approach. That's a miniscule section of sky for our errant randomly moving pilot to be intersecting with. Not disagreeing that there's a quantifiable risk, but the number of midair collisions per year is vanishingly small, and the number of IMC midairs even smaller yet.

@Chris, definitely agreed that trying to actively maintain wings level in IMC without instruments will diverge faster than simply not touching anything at all. I'm not sure how often that's a useful distinction in time, though, since in a 1 minute descent it sounds like both cases generally diverge to spiral. On the other hand, flight through an isolated and narrow cloud would maybe end well before 60 seconds.

@KennSebesta The rudder has a less dramatic effect on bank than the ailerons. It is much easier to avoid overcorrecting with rudder than with ailerons. The hope is that you can avoid or delay spiral entry and that you are more likely to be successful with just rudder.

Honestly, this is not a serious question. Long before you end up here you should have done something to prevent it in the first place.  Didn't you notice the weather changing under you? When that happened you should have taken action to prevent ending up in this situation. But three options suggest themselves.

If you are in contact, or can make contact, with an ARTCC controller, get him to give you a heading to the nearest place where the weather is not IMC, or where there is a hole you can let down through.

If you have formation flying experience and are competent and proficient at it, another very risky, but possible alternative is to make contact with a nearby aircraft, join on their wing and fly formation on them as they penetrate the undercast and bring you down.

Finally, in smooth air, if you at least have a turn & slip indicator and/or a mag compass, and know that the base of the undercast under you is sufficiently high enough above the ground, you could establish your aircraft in a stable, trimmed, wings level, constant airspeed glide with a small descent rate, and just let the plane take you down until you break out underneath. You would need to carefully monitor the turn and slip indicator as you descended through the clouds, and keep it neutral, also monitoring your heading for changes and applying small, very small, roll inputs to keep the turn & slip and compass stable as you descended. Even if you have practiced this, it will be very difficult. If you haven't practiced it, it will be near impossible. @quiet flyers more detailed answer below describes some considerations you should fully understand to attempt this.

Finally, I would not, I repeat, NOT, recommend slipping in the clouds, as the main risk in this scenario is spatial disorientation and any sideslip screws up your inner ear and creates a sense of tilting and turning that will make controlling the aircraft and keeping it stable much much more difficult.

If you have WX information to know that the cloud base is of adequate height, you ought to be able to locate a safe place to descend in clear air.  Now, if you let yourself run bingo fuel in this situation, you may be about to win a Darwin award...

Not a serious question? It happens all the time. https://youtu.be/bLmzy8ZPgtc

@Cloud And the fact they generally end VERY badly for all involved should be the key takeaway. At all costs, you do NOT descend through cloud unless IFR rated in an IFR capable plane. Fly anywhere, bust airspace, call anybody, declare a MayDay, but do not penetrate the cloud. The takeaway isn't that there is a technique - the takeaway is that it's a fatal decision.  airspace

Re "also monitoring your heading indicator for changes and applying small, very small, roll inputs to keep the turn & slip and heading indicators stable as you descended. If you haven't practiced this, it will be difficult." -- the question appears to be phrased such that there are no gyro instruments.

@quietFlyer,  I read that comment as just meaning no artificial horizon (attitude indicator), but I will edit answer to eliminate confusion.

@Dan where's the data they generally end very badly? This sounds like confirmation bias. I know of several VFR pilots who have intentionally descended through cloud layers and popped out the bottom. It's a nothing-burger and only bears mentioning in passing.  As an instrument pilot, I can attest that very little of my instrument training had to do with flying, most of it was learning and practicing the rules of IFR flight.

@KennSebesta AOPA reckon something like >80% of VFR into IMC results in accident: https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/vfr-into-imc-avoidance-and-escape

@KennSebesta There is also the famous 178 seconds quote, which is apparently the average time for a VFR pilot to become disorientated:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/june/pilot/asi-tips-178-seconds
Not odds I'd choose to take. To be honest, I'm quite surprised at your casual approach and find it pretty unbecoming. Flying a VFR plane, as a VFR pilot deliberately into IMC isn't a nothing burger - as everything, it's fine until the very millisecond it isn't.

@Dan, that is not what the AOPA page says. It says that 86% of VFR-into-IMC accidents are fatal. That is hugely different from saying that VFR-into-IMC results in accidents 86% of the time. As quietflyer points out, there is a long and rich tradition of VFR glider pilots exploring lift inside clouds. It's not what I would do, but the statistics show it's absolutely a nothing-burger. My PPL taught me what I needed to know about straight flight through the clouds. VFR pilots in IMC is just not the death sentence you make it out to be.

@Dan put differently, what do you think will happen to a US VFR pilot who takes a modern 6-pack equipped-plane into a cloud, and why am I, as an instrument pilot, immune from this? Am I better equipped to survive as an instrument pilot with a 1970s vacuum panel than a VFR pilot in a modern plane with autopilot and PDF with terrain-display?

@KennSebesta I mean, yes, by virtue of your IMC qualification and training? But why are you now talking about auto pilots and MFDs well beyond the premise? Flown manually a non qualified pilot stands a good chance of making a poor pick of cloud, and of losing control of the aircraft through disorientation, misunderstanding instruments or sheer lack of attention to the scan. Can you really not see a pilot not used to instruments becoming fixated on something and losing control? Maybe the USA PPL goes far deeper, but OP is UK based and as a UK PPL I can say our PPL instrument is cursory at best

@Dan regarding the 178 seconds, this is a good thread to read: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/hvmwrk/178_seconds_to_live_spatial_disorientation_a/fyv4peo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button, and then follow with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_VFR_into_IMC#Inadvertent_entry_into_Instrument_Meteorological_Conditions, specifically that after training those same pilots "59 of the 60 resulting simulated flights successfully resulted in a controlled descent out of the cloud deck without reaching a dangerous condition"

@KennSebesta obviously training solves all, what kind of point is that?

@Dan excellent point about differences between PPL training programs. The US hood training requirement is relatively recent. Indeed, the students pilots cited in the 178 seconds statistics were from 1954 and had NO hood training.

@Dan the point is that when 1954 student pilots were given the kind of training we require of all US PPLs, they survived in 59 of 60 simulations, even with the limited instruments of the time. Can we now agree that in 2023 VFR into IMC does not "generally end very badly"?

@KennSebesta I'm far from convinced an hour of IFR training possibly years ago is sufficient to seriously change the odds under pressure, no. And certainly not sufficient to warrant deliberately entering the situation

The second safest way would be to call for weather information and navigate to a landing site that has VFR conditions to descend and land, or look for a large enough opening in the cloud deck to descend through without requiring instruments (and yes, a forward slip plus flaps, if available, can help descend quickly without building excessive airspeed -- but you need to have practiced this first, because entering a slip incorrectly can also be unsafe).  Flying into cloud without instruments like artificial horizon and the training to use them can lead to a "death spiral" because your inner ear can't reliably detect a descending turn until it has tightened enough to be in danger of breaking Vne (or the airplane).  Not to mention that if you can't see, you can't avoid obstacles.
The safest way out of this condition is not to ever get into it.  Call ahead for weather; choose not to fly when conditions are marginal or are forecast to become marginal; have alternative destinations planned in case conditions deteriorate while aloft, and descend below cloud deck before it closes in (and if that's too low to continue, land).

What's the best way to get through clouds when not instrument rated?

...

Please also assume there are no IMC instruments on board, i.e. no
artificial horizon etc.

...

I asked this at my club and someone suggested side slipping would be
the best approach as you get through quickly and are less likely to
experience unusual attitudes due to not pitching as much.

I would absolutely not sideslip, as it is not compatible with keeping your hands off the control yoke.  You would have absolutely no idea whatsoever if you are continuing to maintain the "correct" amount of aileron input needed to exactly counter the roll torque caused (via slip-roll coupling) by your rudder input, or not.  If you get it wrong, your bank angle starts to change-- perhaps toward more vertical.
As to what you might do instead--
I'm assuming by "no IMC instruments" you mean no gyro instruments of any kind, including gyroscopic heading indicator, and including turn rate indicator / turn coordinator.  If you have either of those, I'd give a somewhat different answer.
I'm also assuming that you don't have a GPS.1
Is it turbulent, or is the air fairly smooth?
I've seen video of a Cessna 120 with no visible gyro instruments (the turn rate indicator was the only gyro instrument installed, and was intentionally covered up) and no GPS being kept wings-level in cloud in smooth air by using the wet compass to hold a southbound course, in the northern hemisphere.  The aircraft was descended through about a thousand feet of cloud.
This would not likely work in too much turbulence, but works well when the air is fairly smooth.
It is critical to establish a southbound magnetic course (if flying in northern hemisphere) before entering cloud. On a southbound course, compass errors work in your favor-- the compass reacts in the same direction to banking as to turning, so it essentially anticipates the heading change that will soon result from a slight bank.  On a northbound course, the compass gives hopelessly misleading indications to any significant bank.  In the real word, if your heading deviates to have even a slight northerly component, you will probably lose control of the aircraft2, so stack the odds in your favor by selecting a due south magnetic course as your target.
Steering with rudder alone (so steering corrections are via a mixture of skidding plus mild roll rate due to slip-roll coupling) works best by far in a typical light plane, especially for a pilot who does not have a great deal of practice flying under the hood with this particular method, i.e. with no gyro instruments or GPS. Trim for a steady descent before entering cloud and then keep your hands off yoke, so that you do not accidentally over-control the aircraft either in pitch or in roll.
Incidentally, I've also seen a wet compass used, again by attempting to hold a southerly course in the northern hemisphere, to help a hang glider pilot hold course in cloud and successfully exit the cloud.  In this case, the glider pilot was able to maintain a semblance of a controlled thermal circle in the cloud to gain several thousand feet of altitude by watching a rudimentary home-made piezoelectric-based turn rate indicator, but when he was ready to exit the cloud (goggles were starting to ice up), the GPS instrument he had available had far too much lag to allow a straight course to be maintained.  (Consider that in any significant wind, the glider's ground speed may be near zero at times-- even with zero lag, a GPS is useless in such a case.)  By using the turn rate indicator to maintain a very low turn rate until the compass was settled on a southerly course, and then transitioning to rely mainly or solely on the compass, the pilot was able to keep the glider on course and exit the cloud.  These were obviously thermic conditions, considering the altitude gained-- which show that a wet compass still has some value even in conditions that are not glassy smooth.  But entering more than the mildest of turbulence without some sort of actual turn rate indicator as a fallback, hoping to rely on the compass alone, would be an invitation to bad outcome.  (As an aside: unlike paragliders, modern hang gliders, including the one involved here, are not inherently stable in roll.  In the absence of corrective roll inputs, they inevitably slowly roll into a turn, which will eventually lead to a rather steep bank angle and high airspeed.  Their characteristics in this area are much less "friendly" than those of a typical light airplane.)
In the magnetic "tropics", i.e. near the magnetic equator, the helpful characteristics of the compass that we see when flying on a southerly course in the northern magnetic hemisphere, or when flying on a northerly course in the southern magnetic hemisphere, vanish.  (As do the unfavorable characteristics that we see when flying on a northerly course in the northerly magnetic hemisphere, etc.)  An aircraft with a great deal of inherent roll stability might still be controllable by reference to the wet compass alone in such a situation, but an aircraft with milder positive roll stability, or any amount of inherent roll instability, would probably not be.3  The techniques described above rely heavily on the fact that given the proper choice of heading, the compass "errors" actually work to give a faster, stronger indication of any developing bank away from the intended course.  In any event, all successful tests and demonstrations of such techniques that the author has knowledge of, were carried out at around 55 degrees of northerly magnetic latitude.
Then we have the "benign spiral maneuver" (see the related ASE question Would the benign spiral maneuver be one alternative to dealing with being "stuck above" or inside a cloud?) -- advocated as a way to descend through cloud in an emergency in some sailplanes-- with their long wingspans, gliders tend to be more spirally unstable, or less spirally stable, than most light airplanes, so perhaps the technique should be explored in light airplanes as well.  I wouldn't rely on it in any aircraft that I hadn't personally confirmed it to work, including exploring the aircraft's response to intentional perturbations.
Disclaimer: don't try any of this at home.
Footnotes:

If you do have a GPS, that opens up a whole can of worms-- what kind of GPS, and how best to use it?  Some portable GPS's designed actually feature a aviation-style turn-rate-indicator display, based on ground-track-derived information, that makes a very functional substitute for a turn rate indicator as long as the wind speed is not so high that your ground speed drops near zero.  On the other hand, if your GPS only has a heading-indicator-style display, how usable this will be for maintaining heading depends in large part on the update rate.  My experience is that on a southerly heading at mid-latitude in the northern hemisphere, a wet compass is superior to a handheld GPS designed for general use (e.g. Garmin Etrex) for holding heading in a light airplane.  And in any situation where the ground speed may approach zero (e.g. soaring in ridge or wave lift), there's no comparison.  The discussion of whether and how to attempt to use a hand-held GPS to fly in cloud in an emergency situation really deserves its own specific question; this answer will focus on using the wet compass.  But whatever you do, don't enable any magnetic-based heading function that your GPS may have.  It suffers from most of the same errors as the wet compass, and will make the GPS essentially unusable in flight.

This statement may sound a bit extreme.  But consider that we'd like our method to have some resilience against not only the effects of any turbulence that may be present, but against any temporary inputs in the "wrong" direction on the pilot's part, due to either disorientation/ vertigo/ inability to rely solely on the instrument, or due to the simple awkwardness of having to always step away from the heading on the compass card that that represents the direction that you are trying to steer the aircraft toward.  (Vertical card compasses avoid this problem.)  In my experience it is very advantageous to choose a target course very near magnetic south, and it is challenging to keep the aircraft under control if the compass is allowed to show even a slight northerly component.

This is a bit of a blanket statement-- obviously the amount of turbulence present, if any, is also a factor.  Conventional "wet" compasses are also prone to errors other than the "northerly turning error" that we're focusing on here, such is those due to the inertia of the card.  In smooth air, most aircraft could probably be controlled by reference to the wet compass alone even near the magnetic equator, but the more turbulent the air, the more the pilot is going to want some "help", either from strong inherent roll stability characteristics of the aircraft, or from the helpful "leading" effect that we see during any accidental deviations as we try to hold a course aimed toward the magnetic equator, at mid-magnetic-latitudes.

Cessna recommends an easterly or westerly course, and that makes more sense to me. Certainly southerly is much better than northerly, but reacting to compass errors in a southerly direction seems more likely to lead to successive overcorrecting than a stable descent. It's not urgent to keep the plane from banking at all- you just want to avoid allowing a full-blown spiral to develop. Though this does rely on having some degree of stability typical of a light airplane, and your advice may very well be better for a hang glider.

@Chris -- I've seen the Cessna manual, but I don't agree with it. I've played around with this a lot "under the hood" etc, and I would strongly recommend a southerly mag course, for the reasons described here.  Experimental subjects include Ces 152, Ces 120, and a high-winged mid-engined pusher lightsport plane.

@Chris -- of course,  in most aircraft, the compass is above the top of the glare shield, so there's no way to go "under the hood" and still see the compass.  So the only way to legally do a hands-on exploration of this would seem to be in actual cloud under this sort of IFR clearance https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/56680/34686 , perhaps with a safety pilot, and some sort of "reverse hood" blocking everything below the glare shield from the view of the experimenting pilot. So it's safe to say that there are few people who have hands-on experience exploring these techniques.

Re my earlier comment-- ""under the hood" etc"-- emphasis on the "etc".  Use your imagination--

Typos to fix-- "But entering cloud in more than the mildest of turbulence without some sort of actual turn rate indicator as a fallback..."   Also "an aviation-style turn-rate-indicator"

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Will the C42 or other Ultralights break up on aerobatic manoeuvres?
There is a video here of an Ikarus C42 performing aerobatic maneuverers.
Now, I know the aircraft is not certified officially, but one of the commenters posted:

The reason these planes aren't rated for aerobatics is because their weight category prohibits acrobatics. Reality is that the power to weight ratio and material strength charactaristics of these planes is such that they're perfectly capable of it. GOOD LUCK getting the aircraft to pull enough G force to break itself, it literally won't go fast enough, you'd need a prolonged full-power dive.

The original aerobatic aircraft of the 20's were made of wood and doped linen, to think that a modern aircraft made of aluminium, nylon and carbon fibre are somehow weaker makes no sense.
A C42 doesn't weigh much, so to pull the 5+ G required to exceed the design specifications of it's wing spar and fixings would require extreme speeds. This display probably maxed out at 100kts, the aircraft would be fine.

Is this true? Is it actually a safe plane to do this in?

not an answer, but there's an old aviation adage which says "Don't do anything which you wouldn't want to form part of an accident investigation". ie/ "Pilot undertook high energy manoeuvres in an aircraft not certified for aerobatics...."

"to think that modern aircraft made of aluminium... are somehow weaker makes no sense" oops, I've just broken a strong aluminium foil with my bare hands...

An ask about the assumptions in the question: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/105023/does-weight-of-an-aircraft-affect-its-ability-to-pull-g

Seems like this might be a circular question, as the answer surely depends on what you define as "aerobatics" vs "safe manoeuvres" ?

The original aerobatic aircraft of the 20's were made of wood and doped linen, to think that a modern aircraft made of aluminium, nylon and carbon fibre are somehow weaker makes no sense.

The tacit assumption here is with two structures made of different materials, the structure made from stronger materials is always stronger, even if the structures are totally different. This is obviously incorrect. You can built an aerobatic plane out of wood just like you could build a plane that will fold under its own weight with aluminum.

A C42 doesn't weigh much, so to pull the 5+ G required to exceed the design specifications of it's wing spar and fixings would require extreme speeds. This display probably maxed out at 100kts, the aircraft would be fine.

Light weight makes it easier to pull more G's, not harder. That is why maneuvering speed increases with higher gross weight.
In any case, per its TCDS, the maneuvering speed is only 82 knots! Considering that its cruising speed at 75% power is listed as 94 knots, the statement that it would need a full-power dive to exceed acceleration limits is ridiculous.
Listening to people on the internet telling you that exceeding aircraft limitations is safe is a great way to get yourself killed.

Final sentence x100. Shouldn't even be listening to us,  but checking the actual people qualified to make the judgement.

Your commenter is a complete idiot. You posted it here because your BS-ometer was probably pinging at 11, but you weren't sure, and that's a good thing.
When it comes to structures, I can make, say a spar beam out of wood, aluminum, carbon, or fibreglass. I'll calculate the load it has to withstand, and I'll use a material cross sectional area that gives what's required to meet the tensile and compression strength required for the extreme limit case.
A wood spar cap made of sitka spruce might have a cross section of a square inch, whereas an aluminum cap will have a cross section of, say 1/4 square inch, and a carbon spar cap might be 1/3 of that. All will have the same strength. Wood has many structural advantages, one being immunity to fatigue.
So strength wise, material itself isn't an issue. The Icarus appears to have main spars of aluminum tube (probably 6061-T6) of some wall thickness, say .040", with a doubler tube inside to reinforce the strut connection where the bending loads are highest.
The C-42's handbook says it's good for +4/-2. This slightly better than Utility Category in certified airplanes, and is well short of aerobatic requirements, normally +6/-4. Those loads are normally a yield limit, the point at which you will bend something permanently. Coming completely apart, the ultimate limit, is another 50% fudge factor, so it should take at least 6G to make the wings fold up at gross weight, above maneuvering speed.
So its official numbers say it's definitely NOT safe for aerobatics, "legally" speaking. Most mild aerobatic maneuvers don't need more than 3Gs to complete, so in the hands of an expert who can keep the plane in limits, and at a reduced weight, it's certainly possible to do aerobatics safely, but you wouldn't want to unless you were an expert and were flying outside the published limits on purpose.
Keep in mind that there is a fair amount of fudge factor built into the structural selection to allow for wear and tear and assembly flaws, so the actual load required to bend the wings at gross weight might actually be 5 or 6Gs, but you can't bank on that.

Could a suitably trained pilot, perform certain aerobatic manoeuvres safely in a C42? Almost certainly yes.
Could performing certain manoeuvres in a C42, whether suitably trained or not, exceed the structural constraints of such an aircraft? Almost certainly, yes (although the same could be said for any aircraft, certified for aerobatics or not)
Should one perform aerobatic manoeuvres in any aircraft uncertified for such use? Almost certainly, no!

Will the C42 or other Ultralights break up on aerobatic manoeuvres?

The headline question is unanswerable beyond the above. Some manoeuvres don't even exceed 1g, and normal speed operating ranges. There's no reason that would break the aircraft as the structure wouldn't be any more affected than straight and level flight. All the above points about not doing it still apply.

Thanks for the answer Jamie, are any ultralights certified for aerobatics? *or can they be? I understand this is a separate question.

I don't see any reason why a fixed wing microlight couldn't be certified. Which ones are certified is some research and/or a question away

@Cloud We've been here before


text:
What control inputs to make if a wing falls off?
If a wing is severed due to structural damage or from a mid-air collision, what is the best control input to make?
I would think opposite aileron and rudder, i.e. if right wing falls off, input full left aileron and left rudder.
We know from previous events that it is possible to come out of such an event safely.

Reach for the radio and get off a mayday?

Here's the way to do it:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lObfaKxqUwA    And, an analysis of that video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I89EMDZ0dsc

@Criggie: With Aviate and Navigate no longer possible, Communicate where to look for your crash site?

@Adam The video discussion has a link to the actual film making https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naSZBdJoEbM

Being pedantic (and a little facetious...), a wing won't fall off a plane in flight. The wing is generating lift, therefore when first severed the wing will rise with the weight of the body no longer holding it down... so (initially at least) the plane falls off the wing! ;-)

Does kissing your arse goodbye count as a control adjustment?

@Adam Thank goodness for extremely high TWR in that airplane. "Produce your lift with the engine instead" isn't an option in most airplanes.

@Adam: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/october/pilot/proficient-pilot-who-needs-wings also comments on that video being fake.  But that article cites a real incident from 1970, involving a Zlin Z 526A Akrobat flown by retired RAF test pilot Neil Williams.  The left wing spar broke while pulling out of a dive.  (But stayed connected, so flying inverted he had lift from both wings.)  He managed to land it right-side-up with a last-second roll, similar to that RC plane hoax!

Quoth the pilot of that F15: "it's highly likely that if I had seen it clearly I would have ejected, because it was obvious you couldn't really fly an airplane like that."

Seems to me that best control input is to turn on afterburner to get enough speed for the remaining control inputs to work.

@john an aircraft without a wing is still an aircraft; a wing without an aircraft is just very large FOD. As we know from TFOA, the aircraft must be the part that other things fall off of. Thus, the wing must fall off the aircraft, rather than the reverse.

@fectin: Could a wing with an attached motor/propeller, power source, and control system that was designed for the task turn into an "aircraft" if it had a sufficient thrust/weight ratio, and the engine was able to sufficiently increase thrust while pointed upward and decrease it when pointed downward, and if when free-falling the engine would assume an upward orientation?

@supercat arguably! But the same might be said of a missile, which would also otherwise be described as falling off an aircraft, so I think the same reaoning still holds.

@fectin so something can fall up?

@someone https://www.military.com/video/military-aircraft-operations/aviation-accidents/f-18-bomb-test-disaster/1000788900001

This one:

Yes, an F-15 has once landed with a lost wing. However, the landing was a close call - 20 more feet and the plane would've overrun the runway. That landing took both skill and luck, as well as a very capable aircraft.
In this case, the pilot applied afterburners to stabilize the aircraft, then performed a carrier-style landing - which isn't a normal flared landing, more like a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) with a hook and cables arresting you while you're crashing.
What made that landing possible is:

The plane in that configuration had a TWR of at least 1.3, possibly more with one wing.
Modern jet fighters use all-moving tailplanes aka tailerons, which can move differentially, providing a powerful secondary roll input.
The F-15's lifting body works even when its wings lose it at zero AoA, reducing lift asymmetry.
There was a runway close enough to reach it on afterburners, and long enough to stop after landing at unusually high speed.

The engines and large all-moving tailplanes were able to overpower the asymmetric lift. It might not have worked, were the damage slightly different. The other necessary control input is using roll to compensate for asymmetric lift - on a fighter, it moves both the ailerons and the tailplanes, and the latter were working.
What makes such a feat impossible in most aircraft is:

Most subsonic, non-aerobatic, non-combat aircraft use fixed tails with elevators, which only move together - they can't affect roll.
Aileron forces on one wing are smaller than its lift, so the wing will still produce positive lift, rolling the plane towards the lost wing.
Cambered airfoils need negative AoA for zero lift, so the plane can't be flown in a straight line.

Jet fighters are uniquely equipped to handle this kind of emergency. Their thin supersonic airfoils work almost linearly across a wide range of AoA, and they have especially large control surfaces. Basically, their controls are more powerful than their wings.
The only planes without ejection seats or ballistic parachutes which have any chance to survive this might be high-end aerobatic or racing aircraft, some of which have stabilators (and some also have ejection seats). The input is essentially the same: go full throttle, counteract roll and spin, counteract whatever else is going on.
In any other aircraft, a crash is inevitable. It's impossible to make a versatile recommendation, but if you can't bail out, and still have any control, bleed energy while you can, and brace for impact.

Best advice to not die.

If the wing hasn't quite fallen off, you could try the Neil Williams inverted Zlin approach: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/october/pilot/proficient-pilot-who-needs-wings

Why is overrunning the end of the runway considered so terrible? Do they make you pay to reset the EMAS or something? :)   So you plow into landing lights at 30 knots and fire trucks arrive in 2 minutes, beats hard crashing off field with rescue 15 minutes away.

@Harper-ReinstateMonica depends on what you're going to hit after overruning that runway. If it just extends into reasonably hard and flat terrain you may well be fine, but more often than not you're going to go into soft sand or dirt, or worse go off a cliff or hit a building, which is definitely detrimental to your health.

Yes, it is indeed possible to come out of such an event safely..... if you happen to be in an aircraft where some of the lift is generated by the body, have an excess amount of thrust available by way of afterburners, and unknown (but probably decades) of flight experience under your belt.
Any other situation... not so much.
If you lose an entire wing, or the majority thereof I would hazard a guess that there is absolutely no control inputs that you can make that will cause you to regain any form of control. A violent crash is inevitable.
There is one class of light aircraft where you have a very high chance of walking away from a catastrophic structural loss, that is one fitted with a Ballistic parachute. The control input in this case is pull the chute!
That said, not all mid-air collisions cause unrecoverable loss of control. Even what looks like major damage might allow you to remain in control. The first rule of aviation still applies - fly the plane. For example, If you notice a roll to one side, adjust with opposing aileron. The same with the use of elevator and rudder. Most importantly, keep the speed up, there's no point having marginal control if you stall it into the ground.

I like wikipedia's characterization of "overabundant engine thrust" to describe what that F-15 had going for it!

My understanding of the Wikipedia article is that the instructor ordered to eject, but he didn't eject himself. In fact, it's not clear whether the instructor was in the plane, because the other crew member is called "navigator" in the sources.

@Pere: From the pilot's own telling of the story, quoted on the skeptics.SE Q&A linked from this answer: "I turned back to shake the hand of my instructor, who had urged me to eject, and then I saw it for the first time - no wing !!!" - So both of them were still in the plane on touchdown.  So I guess the instructor's first reaction was to recommend ejection, but after realizing the plane was controllable enough, he didn't force it.

I think normally fighters are configured so either handle being pulled ejects both seats, although they can be set not to do that (the story of the passenger who got "rewarded" with a back seat ride, and was holding on for dear life... to the ejection seat handles. Pilot's seat didn't fire, but they no canopy.  I remember reading that they reviewed their procedures afterward since SOP was for the ejection seat selector to be set to "both"; it was only good luck in that case that this failure to follow that happened with someone in the back seat accidentally ejecting.)

I have tried to convince the other C42 shareholders to get  parachute installed, they all agree that they cause more danger than they solve (FWIW I would much prefer one)

They do say the most important thing about a share isn't the aircraft but the other shareholders. If their values do not align with yours it might be worth exploring options for a different group.

If a wing is severed or suffers severe damage, and the airplane isn't an F-15 with a lifting body for a fuselage, all-flying tail surfaces can can compensate for much of the lost wing area, and a thrust-to-weight of better than one, there is no control input that will save you.
Maybe, some minor damage out at the wing tip that doesn't compromise the wing spar's bending strength or make it collapse backwards, say from the tip getting struck by a propeller that mangles a couple of feet of tip, you can save it by aileron and rudder inputs to stop the resulting roll, but if that doesn't work, you are done.
Worrying about structural failure is like worrying about a ball joint letting go in your car and sending you careening into oncoming traffic. It can happen at any time, but you put it out of your mind, because the world's full of dangers and you have to live.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer as always John.... have you seen what holds a C42 wing together though? It's just a pin. Although a wing has never fallen off of one yet, I do quadruple check that pin before going anywhere and it makes me nervous

@Cloud I marvel at that too.  But if you do the calcs, you discover the pin, being 8mm steel having a shear strength 95000 psi, it takes over 7000 lbs to shear it off. Over three metric tons.  The entire airplane is less than half a metric ton.  Each wing is holding up about 500 lbs.  It takes over 10 times that force to break the thing.  The pin holding the wing root to the fuselage is under very little load at all, almost all the forces being borne by the struts due to the geometry. You could stick a wooden dowel in there and it would work.  Not to say you don't check it carefully...

Thanks for the info.... well that's re-assuring. Could heavy turbulence 'shimmy' it out?

Not if the retention is installed, which is what you are checking mainly. Other thing to look for is elongation of the holes in the structural fitting the pin goes through, which can happen over many hours of wear & tear. On a preflight of a strutted airplane I always take the wing tip and shake it up and down a little, listening/feeling for obvious slop or free play going clunk clunk in the strut connections. You want it to be tight, or just barely discernable (there's always some tolerance in the holes). A preflight should include GENTLE tugging and pulling at things, looking for looseness.

Thanks John, much appreciated, I'll add that to my DI routine :)

If the airplane is aerobatic enough to sustain knife-edge flight without descending rapidly, roll 90 degrees, fly down to a landing, and roll level just before touchdown.  Large radio-control models have demonstrated this often, although I don't know of a full-scale occurrence.

If a wing becomes detached you must make sufficient control inputs to counteract the roll moment generated by the still-attached wing. This means that you must:

Negate some or all of the lift generated by the remaining wing.
Produce lift on the side of the missing wing equal to the lift generated by the remaining wing, minus the lift removed by the control inputs.

So you would want to roll hard into the remaining wing by turning the control wheel or pushing the stick hard to the side of the remaining wing. This will not, however, be sufficient, as the ailerons on an aircraft can reduce but cannot eliminate all of the lift generated by that wing.
The downside to the above is that you're essentially trying to remove all lift generated by the wings from the aircraft. In a fighter such as the F-15 where the body produces significant lift there may be enough lift to allow the aircraft to fly if you fly fast enough, but in almost any other type of aircraft the lift removed by the control inputs (if sufficient control inputs were possible) would turn the airplane into a brick, which has well-established glide characteristics.
In general, if a wing detaches the aircraft is not going to land safely, and no control inputs you might apply will be sufficient to make it land safely. This leaves you with three options:

Get out of the aircraft before impact and descend via parachute or some other independent system
Use a parachute or some other system attached to the aircraft to enable the aircraft to make a reduce-speed crash into terrain, or
Die.

Those are your options. Plan accordingly.

I like something like "3. Crash. Keep flying the airplane through the crash, to try to reduce impact force as much as possible. Even with a crippled airplane, maybe you can make it crash into treetops or something and at least land upright, and infinitesimally increase your chances of survival," more than "Die." Never give up while you have even one flight control under your control.

@Chris-RegenerateResponse Alaskan airlines 261 embodied that

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
CFI Expiration date
My CFI Certificate Issue date was 7 Dec 2022. Do the new rules for CFI renewal mean that my I can renew my certificate by taking, (and passing)  an online FIRC course at any time from now until 31 March 2025 ?

Yes. The updated text of 14 CFR 61.199(a)(1) reads:

If 3 calendar months or less have passed since the last month of the flight
instructor’s recent experience period, the flight instructor may successfully complete an
approved flight instructor refresher course consisting of ground training or flight training,
or a combination of both, or satisfy one of the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.

The updated text of 14 CFR 61.197(e) reads:

A person who holds an unexpired flight instructor certificate issued before
December 1, 2024, may renew that certificate by establishing recent experience in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section prior to the month of expiration on that
person’s flight instructor certificate. Except as provided in § 61.40, if that person fails to
establish recent experience prior to the expiration of that person’s flight instructor
certificate, that person may not exercise flight instructor privileges until those privileges
are reinstated in accordance with § 61.199.

Between the expiration date and when it is reinstated you cannot exercise the privileges of the certificate.
It might be wise to check with your local FSDO before committing to letting it expire, just in case they have a different interpretation!


text:
Is Pitot Heat required for IFR?
CFR 125.205 states that

§ 125.205 Equipment requirements: Airplanes under IFR. No person may
operate an airplane under IFR unless it has—  (a) A vertical speed
indicator;  (b) A free-air temperature indicator;  (c) A heated pitot
tube for each airspeed indicator;

but CFR 91.205 (d) (which describes the instrument equipment requirements for IFR (Instrument airworthiness), does not require pitot heat)

(d) Instrument flight rules.  For IFR flight, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment
suitable for the route to be flown.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn
indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and
installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in
§ 121.305(j) of this chapter; and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of
roll and installed in accordance with § 29.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second >
pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

So which is controlling?


text:
Safety of unpressurized 9000 foot elevation 6 months after mild heart attack?
For clarity and context this is not a health or medical question, nor am I asking for permission or medical advice.  Rather I would like context and information and to draw upon the experience of this community so I can have an intelligent conversation with my doctor.
I have been invited on a 2 hour flight at 9500 feet in an unpressurized cabin.  I had a mild heart attack 6 months ago and 2 stents implanted.
Are there others on this sub that have experience that would be helpful for my discussion with my doctor?

This is not an aviation question, but a health care question. Please seek advice from a qualified doctor.

Regarding your comment on the edits you made, this site is not designed for open discussion or getting opinions. If there isn't a specific factual answer you're asking for, the question isn't good for the site format.

This is not Reddit, sites are not called “subs”.

This post is locked to prevent the OP from vandalizing it.  Defacing posts that have been made, even ones own posts, is not permitted on Stack Exchange.  The question was asked, and even though it is off topic, it received an answer that has been up-voted.  This may be useful information for those who come later, and it's unacceptable to remove the question which was asked, even when one isn't pleased with the answer or the community's decision regarding the off-topic character of the question.

Ask your doctor, not strangers on the internet.

Wise advice.  For the OPs information though, airliners are typically pressurised to the equivalent of 8000ft

Thanks for providing information.  That is helpful.

@electronpositron the demand on your heart is dependent on oxygen availability and usage.  So, it may be safe as long as you do not exert yourself at that altitude.  Again, an expert opinion from a doctor can put you much more at ease.  It will depend a lot on what you can do at sea level (climb 3 flights of stairs, etc).


text:
landing glider with chronic right drift or float
I just completed 30 glider flights with my instructor. Over the 2 weeks of training everything improved except for this tendency for the glider to move, drift or float to the right and always simultaneous to the flare.  Glider was a stick and I use my right hand on stick. Over 30 landings I always had the controls. Not once did plane drift to left... always right and regardless of calm or stable wind.    This was a bit sad because my instructor and I never fixed and I wasn't advanced to soloing because my landings weren't good enough. I was able to line up with runway fairly well upon turn to final and remain reasonably on target until rollout and flare.

One might specificly request a lesson to fix this.  You should still have control after flaring.  If the glider has a tendency to drift right (this may not be your fault) then ailerons left is the needed input.  Use rudder to keep nose straight.  Keep flying it all the way down to the ground.  My first few flares waited for the miracle of landing to happen.  Don't wait.  Keep control inputs active.

Hello David, welcome to aviation.stackexchange.com. What is your question? I see the problem you are having, but what do you expect from an answer?

Do you hold the stick with your right or your left hand? Could it be that you move it sideways to the right when pulling?

It is apparent that you are seeking advice, but there isn't actually a question in there.... Just a story. (sorry to nitpick, but this is a Q & A site - you gotta actually ask a question!)

It sounds like you have some kind of perception issue when you get close to the ground, where you are subconsciously banking slightly to the right to achieve what you perceive as wings level.
Keeping the nose aligned with the runway, it will result in a drift to the right in calm winds since you are basically sideslipping to the right without realizing it.
If this is what is happening, you will notice the yaw string pointing to the left as you drift right. That's about the only condition in calm winds that would create that kind of effect.
If you were pointing the nose to the right and holding wings level, and more or less flat-turning to the right, it would be a lot more obvious as the nose was pointed off-line from your track down the runway, and you'd get a bit of a sideways jolt as you touch down.
I would think that your instructor would pick up on this, but who knows, maybe the bank you are putting in is so subtle it's hard to tell from the back seat.
It could be as simple as tilting your head to the left without realizing it, and lowering the wing a degree or two to make your sight picture level.
Anyway, food for thought. If you do figure out what it is exactly you are doing to cause this, you will probably be able to fix the problem as you become aware.


text:
Can we do this approach using suitable RNAV instead of ADF/ DME,
KCEW has VOR-A approach. And this has NOTME FIX MINIMA, which requires ADF or DME. However, these ADF or DME are used to find NOTME FIX, (to detect direction of LOM or Distance). In other words ADF and DME are not used as lateral guidance. In this case, is it possible to use GPS as a suitable RNAV to identify NOTME FIX?

Yes. You need to be equipped with a VOR receiver and use it to monitor the final approach course guidance. But identifying other fixes with a suitable RNAV system is fine.
The exact rules for what you can and cannot do with a suitable RNAV system can be found in the AIM, currently under 1-2-3, "Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes."


text:
Why does secondary radar interrogate Mode S or A/C transponders using intermode?
The MSSR MODE S Radar uses different protocols to interrogate A/C or Mode S transponders:
Mode S ALL CALL:
              # Mode A/C.
              # Mode A/C/S (Intermodes short)

Mode S Only ALL CALL:
              # Mode-S only All-Call (UF/DF 11)

My question is why do we need to send the intermode protocol if we can interrogate A/C transponders with Mode A/C?

Mode S transponders are designed to be backwards compatible. If you send a mode A/C interrogation like an older radar would, then mode S transponders will respond just like A/C transponders would, since they assume that the interrogation is from a radar without mode S capabilities.
The intermode A/C all-call interrogation is just like the normal A/C interrogation, but with an extra pulse. This extra pulse tells mode S transponders not to respond and is ignored by mode A/C transponders.
In other words, this is the only way to selectively interrogate A/C transponders without getting a bunch of extra replies from mode S transponders. In congested airspace this is a big benefit.


text:
Safety pilot logging PIC XC time
The FAA Legal Interpretation (Gebhart) makes it clear that if:

Pilot A flies the whole XC flight (> 50 nm), including the enroute portion under the hood, and
Pilot B acts as safety pilot enroute

then:

Pilot A can log PIC XC for the whole flight, and simulated instrument for the time spent under the hood, and
Pilot B can log PIC time when acting as safety pilot.

The reason Pilot B cannot log PIC XC time is given as follows:

Section 61.65(d) contemplates that only the pilot conducting the
entire flight, including takeoff, landing, and en route flight, as a
required flight crewmember may log cross-country flight time. Because
a safety pilot does not conduct the entire flight, a person acting as
a safety pilot for a portion of the flight may not log any
cross-country flight time for the flight.

I'm wondering about a slightly different scenario:

Pilot A flies only the enroute portion of the XC flight under the hood, and
Pilot B acts as safety pilot enroute, and flies the takeoffs and landings.

In this scenario, Pilot B is "conducting the entire flight [...] as a required flight crewmember," as required by the legal interpretation. If Pilot B satisfies the other
cross-country requirements specified in 61.1 (ex. navigates using navaids while giving simulated vectors to Pilot A under the hood), can Pilot B log PIC XC time while Pilot A logs simulated instrument for the enroute portion?

Yes, that would be my conclusion!

There is a point of contention with a safety pilot logging PIC time.  They are only allowed to log it per 61.51(e)(1)(iii) which states they are acting as the legal pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.  If there is an accident or incident while the pilot under the hood is flying the safety pilot has told the FAA they were legally responsible for the flight and should be pilot who receives the consequences.  All because, the safety pilot logged PIC time for the duration of the flight.  I would rather log SIC time and show the FAA the pilot flying was responsible. FWIW

Yes, your interpretation is correct. Pilot B is a required flight member for the entire flight and can log PIC and cross-country time for the entire flight. Pilot A is only a required flight member while they are the sole manipulator under the hood, and can log PIC and simulated instrument time for that period, but cannot log cross-country time.
The Glenn interpretation touches on a similar question, where Pilot A and Pilot B trade controls during the flight. In that case, neither can log cross-country time. This sentence is relevant:

The rationale behind the cross-country requirement is to provide a pilot with aeronautical experience flying a significant distance and landing at an airport that is not the pilot's home airport.

By acting as a required crewmember for the entire flight, Pilot B satisfies this and Pilot A does not.


text:
Is there any existing engine which can be converted to turbofan from turboshaft in mid flight?
I read about convertible engines. I want to know if there is any engine existing to meet up hover and cruise together.

The closest one is the P&W F-135, used in the F-35B VTOL-capable fighter. However, it switches between turbofan and turbofan+turboshaft modes. The fan's still running, but its flow is redirected down through thrust vectoring for hovering.
Here it is shown driving a lift fan, which includes the gearbox.
A similar but larger gearbox can be used to drive a helicopter rotor, if necessary.
This particular engine is too large for a practical-sized helicopter. But it might be possible to convert smaller engines in a similar way.

To be precise, the F-135 is capable of switching between turbofan and turbofan/turboshaft hybrid mode. It never operates in turboshaft only -mode.

You could also state that it is a turbofan engine, period. One with a large power off-take in STOVL configuration. Even in STOVL mode the exhaust needs to provide a relative large airflow.

Is there any internal modification of turbofan engine other than connecting the drive shaft required to use a turbofan engine both in hover and cruise condition like F-35B's engine ?

@NahidaIslam For optimum performance or FADEC, perhaps. But generally almost any turbofan should be able to drive a gearbox instead of the fan or in addition to it.

In this case how to find the shaft power if turbofan is used?

@NahidaIslam That's too big a question for comments. And you'd need to pick a specific engine or specific power range to get a good answer. It's a very wide variation.

How to calculate shaft power for GE CF34 engine?

@NahidaIslam You should ask a separate question for that. Specify what you need to know and why, if possible.


text:
As a holder of a private pilot license foreign based, can I continue my training to commercial?
I have currently acquired permanent residency and want to continue my career in aviation.
My private pilot license in the USA is foreign based, can I take the commercial pilot course normally or do I have to take the private pilot course again here in the United States, to get a "100% American" license and continue as a commercial pilot?

You can continue on to the commercial.
The only mention of a private certificate for the commercial certificate requirements is in 14 CFR § 61.123(h):

Hold at least a private pilot certificate issued under this part or meet the requirements of § 61.73

A private pilot certificate issued based on a foreign pilot license is issued under 14 CFR § 61.75. That is also part 61, so it fulfills the "under this part" requirements just as well as a "100% American" license.

In short...
Yes, I can do a commercial pilot in the US with PP Foreign Based, and advance my career up to the ATP license without any problems.
Or is there a chance that a future employer will look at it and say, "Hmm your PPL is foreign based...."

@BrazilianGuy Indeed, your commercial and ATP won't indicate that your private was foreign-based. The commercial supercedes your private and is 100% American for all intents and purposes. If you look at the FAA's airman certification database, you'll notice that many pilots do not have a private certificate listed. This is because the commercial certificate replaces it. Though it is still possible to have both if you have commercial privileges in one category/class and not another.

@RTO I see, thanks for the clarification. Well in any case I don't see why any employer would care how you got your private when you have an ATP. Assuming it was done legally, of course.

But my PP License Foreign Based Total Hours will count for the Comercial License?

I have 45h in my PP Foreign Based, it will keep counting or not?

@BrazilianGuy The FAA doesn't care where your hours were logged, as long as they're logged under the same rules. It's possible, for instance, that some time you can log as PIC in your country of origin does not count for PIC time in the US, or vice-versa.


text:
In part91 operations, If I want to use odp, do I need to follow takeoff minimum?
I know there are no take off requirements for part 91.
But if we decide to use an ODP, legally should our airplane be able to make minimum climb rate of takeoff minimums described in the ODP chart?

Legally, the only time takeoff minimums apply in part 91 is if you are assigned and accept a clearance that includes them. ATC sometimes assigns an ODP, and you must reject the clearance if you cannot meet the minimums.
If it is not part of your clearance, you do not have to meet the takeoff minimums from a legal standpoint. But you are on your own for obstacle avoidance at that point- the obstacles aren't any lower because you're flying under part 91.
The FAA could still take action under 91.13 if it considers you flying the ODP to be reckless. And of course flying part 91 is little comfort if you fly into the side of a mountain.


text:
Does one need to make temperature corrections for airspace avoidance?
This answer claims that airspace boundaries are based on true altitudes, not any particular altimeter setting. But temperature errors can cause indicated altitudes to vary wildly from true altitudes.
For example, imagine a VFR aircraft traveling at 10500 feet indicated over the KORD class B. If the temperature at KORD is -15 degrees celsius (by no means unheard of at KORD) then the true altitude is about 9200- almost 1000 feet below the class B ceiling!
Is such an aircraft in violation of the class B airspace? If so, how should aircraft determine their true altitude in flight in order to avoid such violations?
On the flip side, if you are flying at an indicated altitude of 9500 feet (nominally inside the class B) on a hot day, then your true altitude is outside the class B. Is this allowed without a class B clearance?

More interesting case would be flying under a Class B... if true altitude with the correction has you under (out of) the Class B but your altimeter says you're in it... would you be in conflict with somebody whose altimeter says he's in it & is flying at the altitude as cleared by ATC?  Would ATC be upset with you for being there without a Bravo clearance?

@RalphJ Good point. I've added a similar example with a hot day with your indicated altitude being near the top of the class B. (Temperature errors are larger at higher altitudes AGL so it's easier to find a realistic example near the top than near the bottom).

Not sure where one finds the answer to "prove a negative," but I would strongly doubt that Class B (or other airspace) altitudes vary from what one reads on a correctly calibrated & set altimeter due to temperatures or whatever other dynamics are out there. I think the implication drawn from the statement made in that other question is simply an incorrect conclusion. But to find the legalese to prove that or show exactly where in the thought process things break down... dunno.

The referenced answer is simply incorrect.
In the USA, charted altitudes below 18,000 ft are always referenced by indicated altitude, adjusted to an altimeter setting station within 100 NM.  Near class B airspace, the altimeter setting comes from either the primary airport ATIS or the destination airport ATIS/AWOS station.
The only exceptions to indicated altitude usage I'm experienced with are the class A airspace pressure levels/flight levels, and the Temperature Compensation procedure (which is not applicable to airspace boundaries anywhere that I know about).


text:
When does taxiing become taking off?
When there is a relocated runway threshold, the PHAK says:

When the threshold is relocated, the closed portion of the runway is not available for use by aircraft for takeoff or landing, but it is available for taxi.

When does taxiing become become taking off? Can I apply takeoff power before reaching the relocated threshold so long as I don't rotate until past the threshold? If not, is there a maximum permissible speed and/or power I should maintain until that point?

Do you ever taxi under takeoff power?  Not sure there is a reg for this, but I'd wait until I got there to apply full power.  Because that's not how I taxi...  ;)

There’s no legal definition given for the word “takeoff”.  I think what you’re talking about here is defined as a takeoff roll and when that’s delineated from high-speed taxiing.

@Carlo: Brings to mind an anecdote from one of my instructors at the FAA Academy... the phraseology was something like "High-speed taxi on Runway 12 is approved, expect takeoff clearance before midfield."

@CarloFelicione Yes, exactly.

@MichaelHall Depends how much I'm in a hurry I suppose. ;)

Good question.  Part of the short field technique I was taught was to taxi onto the runway and immediately go to full power without slowing down.

The experience of Walter Holden seems exactly on point.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden%27s_Lightning_flight

From my comments above, I suppose the real difference is intent.  If you’re moving forward at high speed with the intention of reaching decision/rotation speeds, thence raise the nose and lift off the runway, you’re performing a take off.  If you’re simply moving the aircraft at high speed along the ground, that’s going to be a high speed taxi.  Taxiing is generally considered the movement of an aircraft on the ground to and from parking or terminal areas and a runway for the purposes of flying.  Near as I know, there is no other delineation beyond that.

While it isn't directly applicable, the US Navy broadly categorizes mishaps into "flight" and "ground".  A flight mishap may occur even if an aircraft never actually leaves the ground, for example an aborted takeoff that runs off the prepared surface and causes damage.
The way flight and ground mishaps are delineated is that flight starts "when takeoff power is applied, brakes are released, and the aircraft begins to move with the intent for flight."
Given this definition, (plus common sense) it seem obvious that going to full power before reaching the relocated threshold with the intent to takeoff would be a violation of the spirit and intent of this rule.
Ask yourself if you would be comfortable explaining your decision making process and actions to an NTSB mishap investigation team if something went wrong. ("Golly sir, I was just taxiing at full power and 50 knots when I crossed the line, I wasn't actually taking off yet...")

Makes sense. Still, it makes me wonder what a reasonable line is. I wouldn't want to say "I wasn't at takeoff power, I was only at 90% power" to an NTSB Investigator either! ;)


text:
For a fixed density altitude, how does climb performance depend on pressure altitude?
Below is the climb performance from the 1978 Cessna 152 POH, which I've plotted as climb rate versus density altitude. It shows that higher pressure altitude gives decreased performance even when the density altitude is approximately the same. It also gives a different climb speed for each pressure altitude, so it isn't exactly comparing apples to apples. But it identifies this as the best climb speed so it still claims that performance is degraded with higher pressure altitude independently of density altitude.

Is this trend accurate? If so, how and why does pressure altitude affect climb performance for a fixed density altitude?

Because the loss of climb performance at the higher PA overwhelms the gain in performance from the lower temperatures associated with the unchanging density altitude? Guessing, but that seems consistent with your data.

What type of aircraft does this POH come from?

@RobertDiGiovanni Whoops. It's from a Cessna 152.

The differences in climb rate for the same density altitude may be due to differences in pitch and airspeed (slower is more Vx like).  Note that increasing density altitude lowers Vy.  You can almost use that chart to determine DA from PA and climb performance!

@ThomasPerry The x-axis here is density altitude. For instance, at 5000 feet pressure altitude the climb rate varies from a little over 400 to more than 500 at essentially the same density altitude as the pressure altitude varies from 2000 feet to 8000 ft. I know that performance is degraded at higher density altitude- I'm asking why it is also degraded at higher pressure altitude/lower temperature for a fixed density altitude.

@Chris Temperature!

@ThomasPerry How so? Lower temperature gives worse performance here for the same density altitude (lower pressure and the same density means lower temperature). If it is because of temperature, the trend would naively go in the other direction.

@ThomasPerry How does temperature affect things? Most of the aerodynamics are, to leading order, dependent only on the density. If it's the engine, why does colder temperature lead to decreased performance for a fixed density?

@ThomasPerry Yes, that follows from the ideal gas law $P=\rho k_B T/\bar{m}$. I used that to compute the density altitude in the first place in order to make this plot. I'm well aware that the temperature is different among these points. I'm less clear what aerodynamic or mechanical difference temperature makes on the performance of the aircraft for a fixed density.

@Chris  Yes, this is all thermodynamics.  In fact, your question is one of the most interesting I've ever seen on se-aviation...

@Chris Lycoming gives a cursory estimate of power available at density altitude.  A noted follow up regarding this in KitPlanes was never published. The solution is indeed temperature dependent and is apparently related to indicated horsepower...

Good question. Bottom line is, since rate of climb (ROC) is a function of true airspeed (and lift, thrust, & weight), the best ROC airspeed (Vy) does vary with non-standard atmospheric conditions.  Vtrue is at least 7 knots different across the 60 deg C temperature range of the table. Therefore, the data presented in the question is for varying, mostly non-optimum conditions, hence the scatter.  Data in a small airplane flight manual is purposely limited to keep it simple and safe.
The notion of fixed best climb speeds, whether angle or rate, is common. Not long ago, I overheard a CFII at the FBO say, “Vx is Vx!”  Yet, when one interrogates the short field takeoff distance tables for the C-172, for example, one can observe different KIAS targets at 50 FT depending on weight.

Perhaps it depends on how you read the graph.  If indicated airspeed is held constant, then the graph shows lower climb rate for higher density altitude.
Just stick with one airspeed reading it.
It appears that the listed KIAS is best for that pressure altitude, with the corresponding effect of higher density altitude on climb rate.
This makes sense considering hotter air at the same pressure will be thinner (less dense).
The chart depicts decreasing Vy with higher density altitude.

Yes, it certainly shows decreased performance with higher temperature at fixed pressure altitude, and that makes sense. My question is about why is also shows decreased performance with lower temperature (higher pressure altitude) at fixed density altitude.

@Chris always interesting to think whether "higher" refers to pressure or altitude.  I believe it refers to what the altimeter reads.  So "higher pressure altitude" with the same density altitude would actually mean one is lower than the altimeter is reading, because they are in colder than Standard air.

@Chris so I don't think the graph is reflecting the same density altitude for all data points.  It may be: for a given pressure and density at point A, here is your performance when your altimeter is at 2000, 4000, 6000 etc.  Essentially, it is giving  best rate of climb Vy under those conditions.

Density altitude is the x-axis. The points that are clustered together are at different pressure altitudes and approximately the same density altitude.

@Chris try holding pressure altitude constant for each point/KIAS, and read the points for variable density altitude (corresponding to your climb rate).  Aviators (even from the 1970s) read pressure altitude, and calculate density altitude based on temperature deviation from Standard.


text:
Smoking in the cockpit - how is this tracked?
A finding in the final report of US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 crash is that the captain was smoking in the cockpit during the flight (page 46, section 3.1.2 e of the final report). My questions are:

Are all occupants of the aircraft breathing second hand smoke
including the first officer? Smoke detectors do not work in the
cockpit?
More importantly, how would this kind of behavior be tracked and
corrected in the airline industry? Are the Cockpit Voice Recordings
reviewed? Are there systems/policies in place?

Yes, they would be breathing second hand smoke, but aircraft are well ventilated. The other cockpit crew would be exposed to some amount of smoke. The amount that makes it to the passengers from a single cigarette in the cockpit would probably be undetectable.
Smoke detectors are not very effective at detecting cigarette smoke. I believe this is because most of the smoke passes through filters (the fairly ineffective one on the end of the cigarette and the two very effective ones in the smoker’s chest) which remove particulates and it is therefore not very dense. It takes pretty thick cigarette smoke to set one off.
I don’t know about the rules in Bangladesh, but most of the time airlines are not allowed to listen to cockpit voice recordings. In the US that would be a violation of eavesdropping statutes. The US law stipulates that they may only be used for accident investigation purposes and only transcripts of relevant portions may be released publicly. They can be subpoenaed for a trial only if the publicly released transcript is insufficient and

discovery of cockpit voice recorder recordings is necessary to provide the party with sufficient information for the party to receive a fair trial.
ISBA Amendments of 1990, 104 Stat. 4655.

The pilot’s unions are very much against using the recording or transcripts for any other purpose than accident investigation.
It would end up being down to the other crew reporting them. I doubt it occurs often enough for anyone to keep track of the number of reports for it, and i doubt it would be reportable to any aviation authorities. It would be handled internally to the specific airline.

I disagree with a single cigarette in the cockpit being undetectable to the rest of the plane.  Perhaps if the rest of the plane are smokers!

@mongo You could be right. It probably depends on the aircraft and how the air is piped around after it leaves the packs.

Even in FedEx cargo planes, they didn't seem to zone the flight deck on it's own pack.


text:
EASA and National Aviation Authorities
What are the boundaries of responsibility by the  National Aviation Authorities (Member States of EASA, e.g. France = DGAC) versus the responsibilities of EASA concerning aircraft operations? I know EASA has some responsibility for aircraft operations as noted in EC No 1592-2002, EC 216-2008 and EC 2018-1139. However the National Aviation Authorities (DGAC, ENCA, FOCA, etc.) surely still maintain some operational power or they would cease to exist?
Does anybody have a reference that can clarify whom is responsible for what areas of the "Air Operation" regulations (EASA calls Part 121 "Air Operation") for National Aviation Authorities versus EASA?

Somewhat related

Let's continue with you example of France DGAC.
National body: DGAC
DGAC is in charge of French ATC, in airports and enroute, manages ATC education and training (ENAC, École Nationale de l’Aviation Civile), is the spokesperson for operators, crews and industrials.
DGAC in general is the operational safety people you can see at the airport, EASA is not present. They are reporting to French authorities (e.g. Ministère de la transition écologique) who are still responsible for overseeing aviation activities in France.
Regarding safety, the domain of EASA:

DGAC is responsible for ensuring the safety and security of French air
  transport. On one hand it is a regulatory authority, but it also
  supervises security and safety [...]
DSAC, The Civil Aviation Safety Directorate is the department of DGAC
  in charge of safety. Its task is to ensure safety for everyone
  involved in air transport. It is in charge of monitoring the
  application of the regulations, which are primarily developed by the
  European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

(Source)
STAC (Services Technique de l'Aviation Civile) is a branch of DGAC in charge of planning navaids and airports and designing airports systems.
EU body: EASA
The actual domain of EASA, as name implies, is safety. While EASA doesn't replace local authorities, it is the main regulatory body in EU for civil aviation.
DGAC (actually DSAC) on the other hand is participating to safety regulation preparation as do other national agencies in EU. Remember EASA was only 400 people a few years ago, maybe twice today.
EASA has issued a number of "regulations". Regulations don't have to be implemented locally contrary to "directives", they are binding per se. An analysis of the regulations structure is available here:

Some activities have logically shifted from DGAC to EASA, in particular the ICAO role to issue airworthiness directives for commercial aviation:

From 15th February 2006, DGAC France stops issuing Consignes de
  Navigabilité (= Airworthiness Directives) on behalf of EASA

However ULMs or gliders topics (among other) are still under DGAC responsibility.
EASA vs FAA
Contrary to FAA which encompasses nearly every aspect of civil aviation in the US, EASA has a limited, though critical and expanding, role around security, safety and airworthiness.
Contrary to FAA, EASA is not an ANSP. Eurocontrol itself has not to be compared (yet) with FAA ANSP role, they actually cover only a very small part of the EU sky (Maastricht UAC), even if the long term idea is to standardize ANSP tools in EU and allow a true single sky ATM to cope with the increasing traffic. DGAC (DSNA branch) has still full authority for this aspect in France, and probably for some time since ATC means also coordinating with national air force.

Note that while eurocontrol itself only covers Maastricht UAC, it is the Network Manager, so they approve flight plans everywhere.

@JanHudec, True, but it is interesting to know their geographical scope is a bit different from EASA.  and contrary to EASA, Eurocontrol is not an EU administration but an international organization working for 41 states (vs. 28 EU members). For the 41 states, and several additional partners, they run tools for flight planning, flow management and charge recovery, but for example they have no authority to decide whether a controlled area is safe or not, they receive this information from national aviation agencies or ANSPs.